5 May
2018
5 May
'18
9:07 p.m.
Now that my IPs are propagating, I am attempting to
convert my existing
4 private Java proxies to your code. Looks like it is working, but I do
have some questions to avoid potential issues. The old proxies were
defined by IP address - IP addresses are very tightly controlled,
because there's a mix of proxies and Echolink conferences running on the
one machine.
My program does not listen on individual addresses. It opens a wildcard socket for
each port, receives the traffic and gets the addresses from the OS using special system
calls. That way it can run serveral proxies and relays using only very few sockets,
improving the efficiency of the select().
You can just move over the existing Java proxies to the C program. Stop the Java
proxies and add their addresses to the config file of the C program.
I have no experience with conferences, I do not know if they can co-exist on the same
machine with the proxies. Probably not. It is probably best to use a separate (virtual)
machine for them.
However, I am not sure. It could also be that having the software that opens ports at an
explicit address and these wildcard ports can co-exist.
Rob
5 May
5 May
9:35 p.m.
New subject: Echolink proxy/relay hosting
If they both use the same ports they cannot coexist on the same machine.
Ports opened on a wildcard address cannot be used by other programs that want to open the
same port on a specific address on the same machine
Ruben - ON3RVH
On 5 May 2018, at 22:09, Rob Janssen <pe1chl(a)amsat.org> wrote:
Now that my
IPs are propagating, I am attempting to convert my existing
4 private Java proxies to your code. Looks like it is working, but I do
have some questions to avoid potential issues. The old proxies were
defined by IP address - IP addresses are very tightly controlled,
because there's a mix of proxies and Echolink conferences running on the
one machine.
My program does not listen on individual addresses. It opens a wildcard socket for
each port, receives the traffic and gets the addresses from the OS using special system
calls. That way it can run serveral proxies and relays using only very few sockets,
improving the efficiency of the select().
You can just move over the existing Java proxies to the C program. Stop the Java
proxies and add their addresses to the config file of the C program.
I have no experience with conferences, I do not know if they can co-exist on the same
machine with the proxies. Probably not. It is probably best to use a separate
(virtual)
machine for them.
However, I am not sure. It could also be that having the software that opens ports at
an
explicit address and these wildcard ports can co-exist.
Rob
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net 
6 May
6 May
7:42 a.m.
New subject: Echolink proxy/relay hosting
On Sat, May 5, 2018, 1:37 PM Ruben ON3RVH <on3rvh(a)on3rvh.be> wrote:
If they both use the same ports they cannot coexist on the same machine.
Ports opened on a wildcard address cannot be used by other programs that want to open the
same port on a specific address on the same machine
Ruben is this true with 'SO_REUSEADDR'? which I notice in elproxy.c
has. With 'SO_REUSEADDR', the way I understand it is that it made
"0.0.0.0:8100" and "192.168.0.1:8100" to not be "exactly"
the same
bind, whether without 'SO_REUSEADDR', "0.0.0.0:8100" and
"192.168.0.1:8100" are indeed the same bind since the 0.0.0.0 cover
all of 192.168.0.1.
8:26 a.m.
New subject: Echolink proxy/relay hosting
Hey Bao,
I’m not quite sure about that. But it is my understanding with a lot of packages that you
cannot bind to 192.1.1.1:53 for example when 0.0.0.0:53 is bound to another service. Same
with 127.0.0.1:53
Ruben - ON3RVH
On 6 May 2018, at 08:44, Bao Nguyen
<ngqbao(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, May 5, 2018, 1:37 PM Ruben ON3RVH
<on3rvh(a)on3rvh.be> wrote:
If they both use the same ports they cannot coexist on the same machine.
Ports opened on a wildcard address cannot be used by other programs that want to open the
same port on a specific address on the same machine
Ruben is this true with 'SO_REUSEADDR'? which I notice in elproxy.c
has. With 'SO_REUSEADDR', the way I understand it is that it made
"0.0.0.0:8100" and "192.168.0.1:8100" to not be "exactly"
the same
bind, whether without 'SO_REUSEADDR', "0.0.0.0:8100" and
"192.168.0.1:8100" are indeed the same bind since the 0.0.0.0 cover
all of 192.168.0.1.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net
8:39 a.m.
New subject: Echolink proxy/relay hosting
Ruben,
Right with the default bind options that's the expected behavior.
However, if each of the software that setup a bind socket with
'SO_REUSEADDR' option, it would mean that each 127.0.0.1:53,
192.1.1.1:53 and 0.0.0.0:53 are individual and unique bind set.
In this case, I believe that if the conference software Tony use also
bind with 'SO_REUSEADDR', then it should work with elproxy since
elproxy seemed to already use that option. Tony can strace (in Linux)
his conference software to find out if it's setup with that option.
-bn
0216331C
On Sun, May 6, 2018 at 12:26 AM, Ruben ON3RVH <on3rvh(a)on3rvh.be> wrote:
Hey Bao,
I’m not quite sure about that. But it is my understanding with a lot of packages that you
cannot bind to 192.1.1.1:53 for example when 0.0.0.0:53 is bound to another service. Same
with 127.0.0.1:53
Ruben - ON3RVH
On 6 May 2018, at 08:44, Bao Nguyen
<ngqbao(a)gmail.com> wrote:
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net On Sat, May 5, 2018, 1:37 PM Ruben ON3RVH
<on3rvh(a)on3rvh.be> wrote:
If they both use the same ports they cannot coexist on the same machine.
Ports opened on a wildcard address cannot be used by other programs that want to open the
same port on a specific address on the same machine
Ruben is this true with 'SO_REUSEADDR'? which I notice in elproxy.c
has. With 'SO_REUSEADDR', the way I understand it is that it made
"0.0.0.0:8100" and "192.168.0.1:8100" to not be "exactly"
the same
bind, whether without 'SO_REUSEADDR', "0.0.0.0:8100" and
"192.168.0.1:8100" are indeed the same bind since the 0.0.0.0 cover
all of 192.168.0.1.
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)mailman.ampr.org
https://mailman.ampr.org/mailman/listinfo/44net 
1:01 p.m.
New subject: Echolink proxy/relay hosting
On 06/05/18 17:39, Bao Nguyen wrote:
Ruben,
Right with the default bind options that's the expected behavior.
However, if each of the software that setup a bind socket with
'SO_REUSEADDR' option, it would mean that each 127.0.0.1:53,
192.1.1.1:53 and 0.0.0.0:53 are individual and unique bind set.
In this case, I believe that if the conference software Tony use also
bind with 'SO_REUSEADDR', then it should work with elproxy since
elproxy seemed to already use that option. Tony can strace (in Linux)
his conference software to find out if it's setup with that option.
-bn
0216331C
I suspect it does, because the default configuration binds
127.0.0.1:5198 and 127.0.0.1:5199, as well as 0.0.0.0:5198 and
0.0.0.0:5199. So far, testing seems to indicate this works.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
12:58 p.m.
New subject: Echolink proxy/relay hosting
On 06/05/18 06:35, Ruben ON3RVH wrote:
If they both use the same ports they cannot coexist on
the same machine.
Ports opened on a wildcard address cannot be used by other programs that want to open the
same port on a specific address on the same machine
The rules don't seem so clear cut for UDP.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
12:57 p.m.
New subject: Echolink proxy/relay hosting
On 06/05/18 06:07, Rob Janssen wrote:
My program does not listen on individual addresses.
It opens a
wildcard socket for
each port, receives the traffic and gets the addresses from the OS
using special system
calls. That way it can run serveral proxies and relays using only
very few sockets,
improving the efficiency of the select().
I did notice it listens on 0.0.0.0, at
least in port 8100.
You can just move over the existing Java proxies to the C program.
Stop the Java
proxies and add their addresses to the config file of the C program.
Yes, I did get that working. :)
I have no experience with conferences, I do not know if they can
co-exist on the same
machine with the proxies. Probably not. It is probably best to use a
separate (virtual)
machine for them.
Not practical.
However, I am not sure. It could also be that having
the software
that opens ports at an
explicit address and these wildcard ports can co-exist.
I have seen that with tbd, which opens 5198 and 5199 UDP on 127.0.0.1
for commands and chat respectively, while the default configuration has
Echolink listening on 5198 and 5199 on 0.0.0.0, so there is hope. Will
have to test further, though I was able to connect from my new proxy to
one of the conferences on the same box.
--
73 de Tony VK3JED/VK3IRL
http://vkradio.com
2198
days inactive
2199
days old
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Bao Nguyen -
Rob Janssen -
Ruben ON3RVH -
Tony Langdon